Thursday, January 29, 2009

Then, on January 10, a visitor calling herself Jessica (it will soon be apparent why I question whether that's even her real name) commented about the post, pretending to be ignorant of the whole issue.

She commented a second time saying the post was from gingiedmonds.com. I guess I should have paid more attention. Apparently, she wasn't paying attention to my post. I clearly linked to the post I was fisking, and even linked to the site where where Allen J. Troupe, the author of the post I was referring to, referenced the text he was posting, and I noted that I had searched that site (http://survivors.la) but hadn't found the article there.

Today, "Jessica" commented yet again on that post, telling me that she had been lying all along. Below is the full content of her comment, with my responses.

You guys want to hear something really funny?! I'm Gingi's sister! That's right! However, I didn't lie about being new to blogger.com so if it doesn't say my name this time I'm Jessica, the one who posted earlier

I don't find it particularly amusing, but whatever...

Why'd I lie? Couple reasons...

It doesn't matter why. Lying is a sin, according to your religion, right?

I thought it was hilarious that you kept digging on Ging for never siting medical text where doctors agree when human life begins. I found it funny that you were so pissed about her doing that, that you mentioned it about 80 times. Yet not once did you provide "facts" that prove medical science dosen't agree whenlife begins (you couldn't do it because you had no "facts".) I even gave you the opportunity to bring forth your "facts", and guess what? You couldn't do it.

And I thought it was hilarious that you can't spell. I wasn't "pissed" about anything. I was merely refuting the illogical, unfounded claims of an obviously ignorant religious wingnut. Contrary to your exaggeration, I did not dig on "Ging" 80 times for not "siting" [sic] sources, and I did, in fact reference the 1989, amici curiae brief prepared for the Supreme Court case of William Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, where 167 scientists and physicians, including twelve Nobel laureates, argued: There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth. The question of "when a human life begins" cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles like those with which we predict planetary movement. The answer to that question will depend on each individual's social, religious, philosophical, ethical, and moral beliefs and values. This is an easily verifiable fact. I could easily have come up with more examples of the lack of scientific consensus about when a human life begins, but felt that one example of that caliber should suffice to make my point.

The other reason, and pretty much the main one to why I first wrote to you. You tried to make it look like you made this an open letter to my sis, yet I know as well as you that you never tried to contact Gingi. I even made a joke about feeling silly about not looking up her name in the first place. Because it was so painfully obvious that you never tried to contact her. You would either have to be completly retarded when it comes to computers (which I know you aren't, seeing as you can figure out this site when I can't) and not know how easy it is to run a search. Or, you wanted to make it appear you posted this "brilliant" blog and Gingi was too scared to respond.

First of all, I had no knowledge of your sister, and was responding to Allen J. Troupe, who made no mention of your sister, other than putting her name at the bottom of the letter. When I went to the site he referenced, that letter did not appear anywhere. I, for one, have a pretty busy schedule and tracking down someone to let them know that I had posted on something they wrote which was then posted on another site, which was then posted on some guys blog isn't worth my time. I never once mentioned or even suggested that Gingi was too scared to respond. Having known a fair number of anti-choice crusaders, the last thing I would think is that one of you is too scared to respond-you're all too eager to shove your religion and your view point down the throats of those who don't agree with you.

Secondly, the day after I originally posted that, my wife and I found out that she had had a miscarriage, and we were more than a bit busy with dealing with that. Would I have tracked down Gingi? probably not. However, I know when I originally posted that I had intended on returning to Mr. Troupe's blog and leaving a comment for him linking back to my post. Shit happens.

I gave you an out! I said, "Also, what was Gingi Edmonds responce?". All you had to say was, I never sent it to her or, I've never contacted her. But, no...you had to prove me right again.

I'm not sure what I was proving "right", but like I said, I'm pretty busy these days, and responding to comments from people with remedial reading and spelling skills is generally something I don't have time for.

I'll break it down for you. Medical science HAS ALWAYS AGREED when life begins. Since I know you know your way around a computer do your own research before you post a blog boasting your own willful ignorance. Otherwise you just look foolish.

Someone sure looks foolish. I've done quite a bit of searching, and I can't find a single reputable scientific or medical source that claims to have a definitive consensus on when life begins, and certainly no consensus on when the fetus becomes a person.

And last of all, (this may sound harsh) grow some balls. If you spend all that time "debunking" and "ripping apart an opposing view" have the balls to say it to someones face. Otherwise you'll just look like a coward who is too afraid to engage someone with an opposing view.

You're probably right, I should have taken the time to at least post a comment on Mr. Troupe's blog. As I've explained above, things were a bit crazy back then, and I'm not going to apologize for that.

These views are entirely my own. If you want to talk to my sister I suggest contacting her.

Since Amendment 48 was defeated on November 4 by an incredibly wide margin (73.5% opposing to 26.5% in favor), why on earth would I want to engage in a debate about that amendment?

God bless,Jessica

Thanks, but keep your god to yourself.

I have no idea why so man Christians are perfectly ok with lying about crap like this. You accuse me of not having any balls, but, really, I was a tad lazy and super busy. You on the other hand, were so cowardly that you had to go out of your way to deceive me, rather than being up front and honest about your motives. You could have told your sister about the post and had her contact me directly, but you'd rather play your little passive-aggressive games and call me names. If you really are a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for lying, run to your nearest clergy and confess your sins.

And one more thing. Why is it that so many Christians can barely read and write English? It seems like every email and post I see by a wingnut is so full of spelling and grammar errors that I feel like I'm communicating with a fourth grader.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

I haven't delved into the podcasts too far yet, but so far it looks really promising. Sort of a "spirituality" for us atheists. Not in a woo-driven, "higher power" way, but sort of a way to help you determine what your purpose is. Interesting stuff.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Experiments headed up by psychologist Jesse Preston of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and her colleague Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago provide some data to support the argument that the conflict is inherent, or hard-wired. They found that subjects apparently cannot easily give positive evaluations to both God and science as explanations for big questions, such as the origin of life and the universe, at the same time.

They conclude that the conflict is hardwired, but I question their results. Or, rather, I question how the hardwiring occurs. They seem to be saying it's something biological rather than cultural, but since our neural pathways change according to our experiences and knowledge, I'm not sure I can agree completely with what they say. It may be that the conflict is hardwired into individuals, but is that hardwiring the result of our upbringing and the indoctrination we experience nearly from infancy, or is it truly biological?

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Sunday, January 11, 2009

There's a lot of stir around atheosphere about President-Elect Obama's choice of Rick Warren, and for a while, I agreed with most of it that it was truly a horrible choice and a bit of a slap in the face to those who elected him. However, Dale McGowan over at The Meming of Life has a really interesting take on it, and what he says has caused me to reevaluate the situation. Could it truly be a very different kind of politics, beyond just a change from the Bush administration and their neocon puppetmasters?

For all his wrongheadedness on key issues, Rick Warren has shown a willingness to reach across the aisle, to open lines of communication when others have refused, often angering his team in the process. Obama has seized this opening despite their differences. In so doing, he may help moderate evangelical attitudes toward him. By co-opting one of their generals with a gracious gesture of inclusion that goes beyond the usual tokenism, he has quite possibly made it easier to move forward on several fronts. And progress on those fronts matters much more than the opportunity to pack the inaugural moment with partisan purity.

Friday, January 9, 2009

In Mesa County, CO, there's apparently some stirrings of trouble around the invocation said at each County Commission meeting. Instead of doing the constitutionally correct thing and actually eliminating the invocation, the Chair of the commission decided that she would just bang her gavel after the prayer, as if that means the commission is not endorsing the prayer at all. The city of Grand Junction had already created a policy for random selection of "spiritual leaders" around the community to give the invocation and to request that they leave the word "Jesus" out of the prayers, and the county could have basically used that same policy to avoid lawsuits, but chose instead to be cheeky about it. Now, apparently, the ACLU is considering a lawsuit.

I have an idea-let's eliminate any prayer, invocation, meditation, goat-burning or any other type of religious ceremony from government meetings. Either that, or atheist and secular humanist groups around the country need to start flooding their local governments with requests to have humanist celebrants, atheist group leaders, etc. give the opening invocation.